Airline pilots are seriously concerned about inconsistencies in the security screening of ground and air staff at Australia's major airports.

The Australian Airline Pilots Association is questioning why its 5000 members are subjected to stricter screening than others with aircraft access, including baggage handlers, cleaners and catering staff.

'It's our belief that for a long time that has been a gap in the aviation security system - that people that do have access to the aircraft should have the same level of screening as people that come through the terminal,' Australian Airline Pilots Association president Murray Butts told Sky News Australia.

'The people conducting the screening within the terminal should be government employees, in an organisation such as TSA, and we have said that with the super ministry that's being created under Peter Dutton, we believe that's a great opportunity to achieve that.'

The demand for action echoes calls by transport workers and federal police as airport security is tightened following an alleged foiled plot to bomb or gas a passenger plane out of Sydney.

Pilots are also unconvinced about private contractors doing security screening rather than a government agency.

Captain Butt says these issues have been raised with the government in the past but have fallen on deaf ears.

Senator Nick Xenophon, who spearheaded a recent inquiry into aviation security, has told Sky News he will urge the government to plug the screening gap when parliament returns next week.

'Right now I'm focused on the loophole in the legislation in terms of domestic flights you don't have to show any ID, I think that's something that needs to be looked at,'he said.

'Pilots, more than anyone, want to make sure that their passengers go from A to B safely.'

The Transport Workers Union has also panned airport security, saying high staff turnover means workers without security clearance are being granted access to high-risk areas.

Deakin University counter-terrorism expert Professor Greg Barton believes everyday Australians will be willing to accept delays if they know exactly why the screening procedures are in place and has called for greater security procedures at regional airports.

'There should be identity checks for all passengers flying in Australia, whether they're flying domestically or internationally. It wouldn't be a great imposition on people flying if people understood the reason they might accept why they may have to go out and get an identity card if they don't have a licence or a passport.'

Police fear organised crime figures are getting work at airports and ports and exploiting their security passes to influence the screening of cargo and passengers.

More than 60 organisations and companies can issue aviation and maritime security identification cards, with the AFP warning the more people who can dish them out, the more vulnerable they become.

There are 250,000 aviation and maritime security cards issued but the regulator responsible cannot say how many workers have ceased employment and not given their cards back.

The passes are issued by organisations including airlines, the immigration department and port operators, and while the Office of Transport Security runs card-return campaigns, nobody has ever been fined for refusing.

The agency is investigating adding biometrics to security cards and cutting the number of issuers.

It is also boosting screening of airport staff working in restricted areas, expanding the scope of background checks and forcing those who issue ID cards to verify identities face-to-face.

Anyone with links to serious or organised crime would be blocked from getting identification cards under legislation before parliament.

The peak airline pilots body has demanded the government requires domestic passengers to show photo ID before boarding.

The peak airline pilots body has demanded the federal government require domestic airline passengers to produce photo identification before boarding aircraft, as part of a three-pronged strategy to tighten airport security.

The call, announced in Sydney by Australian Airline Pilots Association president Murray Butt and South Australian independent senator Nick Xenophon, will put more pressure on Transport Minister Darren Chester.

Mr Chester has flagged increased security measures at airports since arrests at the weekend of alleged Islamic terrorists in Sydney over a claimed plot to bring down an airliner.

But security experts say those measures — such as randomly and publicly searching by hand suitcases that routinely will be X-rayed out of sight anyway before being put in the cargo hold — are more show than substance.

However, ID checks matched against terror watch lists would make a big difference, says international security and terrorism expert Carl Ungerer.

“Sixteen years after 9/11 it seems incongruous that screening at airports still has gaps,” said Dr Ungerer, formerly of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and now at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy.

“Aircraft remain a high priority for terrorists because it meets their criteria for spectacle. Checking names against passports, as is done on international flights would seem to be a sensible precaution.”

Aviation analysts suggest big carriers would privately lobby against such a requirement, which would undermine cost-saving efforts to reduce counter staff by having customers collect boarding cards from auto­mated kiosks and drop their bags at conveyor belts.

The federal government is also reluctant to meet another call by the pilots association: that a single federal government transport security agency employing its own staff take over airport security. In the US, such officers check passenger identities.

“There would be significant cost to government in establishing a single, centralised screening authority and developing the capability to manage it on an ongoing basis,” Mr Chester told The Australian. “The government also considers that a single, centralised screening authority would not result in any foreseeable improvement in security outcomes and would likely result in a cost increase for the travelling public.”

Police patrol Sydney Airport on Monday. Picture: Getty

The third call from pilots and Senator Xenophon was for the federal government to require ground staff such as baggage handlers, caterers and cleaners, to face the same security screening as pilots and passengers.

Such workers, often casual staff or subcontractors, only have to flash ID cards at the security entrance and are not usually undergo metal detection screening or bag searches.

“It’s an inconsistency that needs to be rectified,’’ Captain Butt, who flies Qantas A380s, said in Sydney.

“It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to envisage how terrorism-inclined ground staff with access to planes on the tarmac could carry out an act not in the interest of that aircraft,” Captain Butt said.

Mr Chester told The Australian on Wednesday night: “There would be challenges and costs in implementing identity checking for all domestic flights.

“For example, there is no consistent form of identification used domestically across Australia.

“Domestic travellers (for example, minors) may not hold a valid Australian driver’s licence or ­passport.”

Of course none of the issues mentioned are any sort of revelation, you only need go back some 9 months to the evidence given by Alan Kessing at the refreshed now defunct Senate Airports Security inquiry:

In the course of doing some trolling into the possible culprits that aided & abetted the obfuscation/delay on nine critical PelAir inquiry documents - see HERE & HERE - I discovered some 'passing strange' deckchair shuffling at the RRAT committee Secretariat that saw most of the deckchairs shoved off the deck in the lead up to the 2013 election:

It would appear that 2015 was pretty stable and on review of 2017 most of those same individuals are still part of the Secretariat.

Hmm...so 2013 was possibly a one off aberration and maybe it had something to do with the election? However that doesn't really make sense because, other than a swapping of roles by the Heff and Sterlo as Chairs of the reference and legislative committees, the membership remained pretty much unchanged and has always been a steadfastly apolitical Senate committee.

Oh well curiosity itch is yet to be satisfactorily scratched -

Thread drift over and remember Sir A fronts up 11 am tomorrow in front of the Senate Committee...

(08-03-2017, 01:12 PM)Peetwo Wrote: Following on from the recent discourse on the ever popular Chester thread - Chester under fire on airport safety..err security & safety - Nick Xenophon has now jumped into the fray in support of the AusALPA concerns, with some even more embarrassing MSM coverage...

The peak airline pilots body has demanded the government requires domestic passengers to show photo ID before boarding.

Of course none of the issues mentioned are any sort of revelation, you only need go back some 9 months to the evidence given by Alan Kessing at the refreshed now defunct Senate Airports Security inquiry:

(i) the Australian Government has a fundamental duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure that air travel in Australia is safe from malicious or terrorist activities,
(ii) Australia's aviation security obligations under the International Civil Aviation Organization's Convention on International Civil Aviation must be approached with world's-best practice in mind,
(iii) as part of the current aviation safety regime, the following categories are examples of people subject to mandatory screening at major airport terminals: passengers, cabin crew and pilots, and
(iv) with reference to regulation 4.11 of the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005, the following categories are examples of Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC) holders who are not subject to mandatory screening at major airport terminals: baggage handlers, aircraft catering staff and ground service staff; and

(b) calls on the Government to repeal regulation 4.11 of the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 to provide consistency by mandating screening at major airport terminals for all persons, other than those set out in:

(i) regulation 4.09(3) - people disembarking from an aircraft who have already been suitably screened, other than international transit passengers, cabin crew and pilots,
(ii) regulation 4.10 - law enforcement officers, screening personnel managing a screening point, emergency personnel responding to an emergency and members of the Defence Force responding to an event or threat, and
(iii) regulation 4.12 - heads of state, heads of government or foreign ministers.

(08-03-2017, 01:12 PM)Peetwo Wrote: Following on from the recent discourse on the ever popular Chester thread - Chester under fire on airport safety..err security & safety - Nick Xenophon has now jumped into the fray in support of the AusALPA concerns, with some even more embarrassing MSM coverage...

The peak airline pilots body has demanded the government requires domestic passengers to show photo ID before boarding.

Of course none of the issues mentioned are any sort of revelation, you only need go back some 9 months to the evidence given by Alan Kessing at the refreshed now defunct Senate Airports Security inquiry:

(i) the Australian Government has a fundamental duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure that air travel in Australia is safe from malicious or terrorist activities,
(ii) Australia's aviation security obligations under the International Civil Aviation Organization's Convention on International Civil Aviation must be approached with world's-best practice in mind,
(iii) as part of the current aviation safety regime, the following categories are examples of people subject to mandatory screening at major airport terminals: passengers, cabin crew and pilots, and
(iv) with reference to regulation 4.11 of the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005, the following categories are examples of Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC) holders who are not subject to mandatory screening at major airport terminals: baggage handlers, aircraft catering staff and ground service staff; and

(b) calls on the Government to repeal regulation 4.11 of the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 to provide consistency by mandating screening at major airport terminals for all persons, other than those set out in:

(i) regulation 4.09(3) - people disembarking from an aircraft who have already been suitably screened, other than international transit passengers, cabin crew and pilots,
(ii) regulation 4.10 - law enforcement officers, screening personnel managing a screening point, emergency personnel responding to an emergency and members of the Defence Force responding to an event or threat, and
(iii) regulation 4.12 - heads of state, heads of government or foreign ministers.

The government has voted down a motion from independent Senator Nick Xenophon to require airport staff with access to aircraft including baggage handlers, caterers and cleaners to go through the same body and baggage security screens as aircrew and passengers.

The Transport Workers Union, the Australian Airline Pilots Association and terrorism experts have warned that screening checks on staff entering airport security perimeters is too lax.

The Australian Federal Police last week told a parliamentary committee that organised crime has infiltrated such personnel.

Such workers, often casual staff or subcontractors, only have to flash ID cards at the security entrance and are not usually required to undergo metal detection screening or manual searches or X-ray screening of their bags, as passengers and aircrew are.

“It’s an inconsistency that needs to be rectified,’’ AAPA president Murray Butt, who flies Qantas A380s, said in Sydney last week.

“It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to envisage how terrorism-inclined ground staff with access to planes on the tarmac could carry out an act not in the interest of that aircraft,” Captain Butt said.

South Australian Senator Xenophon’s motion to the Senate this afternoon “calls on the Government to repeal Aviation Transport Safety Regulations Reg 4.11 to provide consistency by mandating screening at major airport terminals for all persons.”

The only exemptions would be for “people disembarking from an aircraft who have already been suitably screened”; law enforcement, security, and emergency staff; defence force personnel responding to a threat; and heads of state, heads of government or foreign ministers.

Labor joined the government in voting down the motion.

Senator Xenophon told The Australian following the vote he was “gobsmacked” the major parties and the Greens combined to defeat his motion.

“It is quite disappointing considering the assurances the government gave after the recent terror-related arrests that security at our airports was being boosted,” Senator Xenophon said.

“I have great respect for the work that ground crew at airports do, but this loophole fails to pass the most cursory of pub tests” Senator Xenophon said.

“How can the government ignore the peak body representing 5000 commercial aircraft pilots?”

“Australian travellers are going to trust the opinion of an experienced pilot over a politician any day over what needs to be done to improve airline safety.”

Senator Xenophon said he would continue to press the matter.There was no immediate comment from Mr Chester’s office as to why the government voted against Senator Xenophon’s motion.

From Senate Hansard today:

Quote:Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (12:25): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator McGRATH: The coalition government's No.1 priority is the safety and security of Australians. The government is already implementing strengthened airside security arrangements at Australia's nine major airports. The Transport Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 was passed by parliament in March, and amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 are currently being drafted. The arrangements include the screening of people, vehicles and goods accessing security restricted areas. The International Civil Aviation Authority has determined that the strengthened airside security arrangements will meet its standards. The government can provide a briefing to Senator Xenophon and other interested senators on the strengthened arrangements.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute. Senator XENOPHON: This motion relates to ensuring that the screening at our airports is consistent, including the ground staff. At the moment, ground staff, baggage handlers, cleaners, caterers and others who have an ASIC card aren't necessarily screened when they have access to an aircraft, unlike all passengers, pilots and crew of an aircraft.

This motion came about as a result of discussions I've had with the peak pilots body in this country, AusALPA, which represents 5,000 commercial airline pilots, whose foremost concern is the safety of their passengers. This motion is about calling on the government to close a loophole in the screening at our airports. I urge honourable senators to support this motion.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Xenophon be agreed to.

Senator Xenophon told The Australian following the vote he was “gobsmacked” the major parties and the Greens combined to defeat his motion.

Why – FDS – is it that every time I go through to airside; wearing a uniform and an ASIC I get ‘done over’. Thorny reckons it’s ‘cos I look dodgy – then he cops it. The ‘gunpowder’ residual test really does my head in – seriously – but I’ve nutted it out. DO NOT have that last smoke before entering – shows positive every time. Then there is the saga of my ancient, valuable, rare, gifted to me by my Grand Papa pocket knife. As a climber the young “K” came to rely on the short, sharp blade; as a sailor a slightly less young “K” used that knife to great effect, when ‘matters nautical’ turned unpleasant. It was a small, innocuous thing; 4” in old money; 100 mm in the new; with a handy corkscrew.

This is a BOLLOCKS – Only Chester could stuff this up – my bloody Aunt Fanny (known nut job) could board an aircraft under the domestic tyranny’s name on the boarding pass (has done)– but me! and I’m flying the bloody thing; can’t get past the troll at the gate to Nirvana without having to drop my dax, taking off boots and belt, flight kit ‘sniffed’; and, to top it off - having my bloody knife confiscated – to be picked up later. That is another story – the case of the disappearing articles – seems ‘they’ can’t find it – only worth about a grand – on Ebay.

The time for every thinking aviator to bang on the Senators doors – again – is drawing closer as the DIP connected to the Pel-Air ditching off Norfolk Island put the finishing touches to their response to ‘investigation Mark II. The timing of latest ‘reform’ smokescreen confirms it. My punters unerringly picked that one a while back; ‘Sooth the Senate’ short priced favourite in the lead up events to the running of the major race on the card.

One could argue that the latest feel good rhetoric from Sleepy Hollow comes as a result of good will, brought about by solid leadership and conscience. Perhaps CEO Carmody has read the Senate recommendations from the Pel-Air inquiry and the ASRR and realised that reform is essential. On the other hand, you could say that the ‘reform’ has been mooted simply to keep the Senate committee off the ministerial back.

My BRB tote board tells a very different story. The short priced favourite is ‘Fear of Comparison’.

The big money (from some very savvy, informed punters) supports the notion that ‘Fear’ of any holistic comparison between the Pel-Air weather related incident (Norfolk) and the Qantas/Virgin weather related incident (Mildura) will show the stark differences in the treatment of the two events. This, stand alone, begs questions to which, IMO, the Senate committee should demand answers.

More big money (from even more punters) supports the notion that ‘Fear’ of any holistic comparison between the treatment of Airtex and Pel-Air, under the direction of Chambers will raise questions that CASA will not dare to answer.

Where the tote shows some value in a bet is on the Senate committee actions. There is no guarantee that they will dive into these murky waters. The hope is that the second ATSB report into the Norfolk ditching will trigger a positive response to the on going aberrations. Despite the rhetoric until CASA are actually forced to face up to the reality of what has been perpetrated – in the name of ‘safety’ then there has been no value of an intrinsic or practical nature gained from the vast sums expended on the Pel-Air debacle. Some would go so far as to say that despite the noise generated by the Senate committee, if they don’t take positive action, do the comparisons and ensure that both ATSB and CASA are put firmly in their place; then they are just another bunch of stuffed shirts, banging their gums and allowing two out of control public safety agencies to continue doing as they please, when it pleases them best; without there being any recourse. The Senate action tote board item is still at 4/1; which makes it a good each way bet.

On 8 February 2012, the names of the Senate standing committees on Rural Affairs and Transport were changed back to: the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee and the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee.

On 29 March 2017, the order of the Senate of 8 November 2016, which related to the hearings for the 2017-18 Budget estimates, was amended to insert cross portfolio estimates hearings on Murray Darling Basin Plan matters.

This Hansard segment IMO is one of the most interesting to come out Senate Estimates for a long time. I have already quoted certain parts on the Drone Wars thread but in light of the CASA/ATSB/ (Hood & Carmody) continued embuggerance of Dom James, I would like to draw attention to the following quoted Hansard:-

Barry O on investigative standards & administrative due process... :

Quote:CHAIR: I get the resource thing. I get that. I know what's required in terms of resources to investigate matters. If I were a drone operator out there and decided I was going to flout the rules—this debate's not going to go away. In the last 24 hours, we've had drugs dropped into a prison. It's like living through a self-fulfilling prophecy about what's happening around this space. I wouldn't be concerned about you mob. I would think: 'There have been these other incidents. They didn't pursue them with any energy. If they're not going to go after them, they're definitely not going to come after me.' This is a problem. If you've got a resource issue that you say impedes your ability to direct people to do a thorough investigation about breaches of the law around the use of drones, my advice is you should start making the argument to government that you need more resources, not say, 'We're not going to do it because we're not equipped to do it.'

Mr Carmody : I understand your point, thank you. My only response is that the allocation of resources for investigations of drones or any other matter depends a great deal on the seriousness of the matter.

CHAIR: That takes up the matter of Senator Sterle. It's my background, to some extent. We investigate matters and we prosecute people, where possible, for breaches of any law—drones or anything else—and we do that for a purpose. It's to inhibit this behaviour in the first instance. If we have to wait until the person is murdered before we dispatch a team of detectives around to have a look at it—there are similarities here. If you know that people are breaching the law, but we wait for some catastrophic aspect to it before we dedicate a body of resources, that's not a deterrent for people to behave in a lawful manner, in my view.

Dr Aleck : I understand your view. We did not wait. We did investigate. We issued. We came up with a penalty.

CHAIR: We'll wait to see the matters come back on notice, but I have to tell you, an interview—and I don't know who the others were. Dr Aleck's investigator would be one of the few people in the room who wouldn't know who was at the rugby match or who goes to these matches. It's well known. It's well publicised. You can Google it. The same people go and run around that flat every time. This young man who operated the drone knows everyone in this place—I promise you. I'm interested in what he said when your investigator quite properly said to him: 'Who else was present? What are the names and identities of the other people that you don't know about?'

Dr Aleck : We took on notice whether that question was asked. I said that, in my view—

CHAIR: Of course. I've got to tell you, if your investigator didn't ask it, you want to get him or her down into the car park and get them out of your business as quickly as you can. That would have to be the most fundamental question.

Dr Aleck : I would say that the questions that were asked of the individual were not answered in a particularly fulsome manner—and there's no obligation for anyone to do so. I'm not justifying that, but it's a reality.

CHAIR: You're telling me now that you have at least advice that the individual did not cooperate with your investigators in a full and wholesome manner.

Dr Aleck : I would say that the individual did not respond fulsomely and, to that extent, was not as cooperative as we would like to have been.

CHAIR: Were these interviews recorded?

Dr Aleck : Not to my knowledge, no.

CHAIR: You're telling me someone started an investigation and interviewed an individual, at least with a view to a prosecution, and didn't record it to the standard that would be required to underpin that prosecution? Are there no notes, no contemporaneous record of the conversation, no recording taped, no video or otherwise? Is that what you're telling us?

Dr Aleck : I will only say that the maximum consequence of such an event was an infringement notice. I'm not aware of matters of that kind.

CHAIR: That is not the burden of my question. Are you telling this committee that your investigator, confronted with a witness or a potential offender, who you say wasn't totally cooperative, did not record in any shape or form the interview that took place?

Mr Carmody : To clarify, if I may, I thought the question might not have been clear for Dr Aleck. When you said, 'Record in any way, shape or form,' I'm not certain whether there was a voice recording, but there was an investigative report. There will be notes. There is an investigation.

CHAIR: That's different from the evidence. I'll tell you what we're going to do. When my colleagues have finished with you, why don't you have tea and bikkies in the other room, reach out and come back to give us a more fulsome answer of you records? I don't want to just take this on notice, because this has taken a direction of its own. I'd like you to come back and, if there's any possibility in this modern world that they can transmit those notes taken at the time or get any other recording into your hands, we'll look forward to listening to it and examining it further

Not exactly sure why they bothered putting the black texta through the names etc. NX has already spilled the beans on Malcolm and Fred...

Quote:Senator XENOPHON: Okay, but it seems, on the face of it, that it is having a bearing on the decisions made by CASA given that there was an email from Malcolm Campbell on 6 October 2017 to Fred van der Heide.

Or here at 09:35 -

...plus the docs were released under the FOI so technically they are available to anyone un-redacted if requested - or not... ( see here: Vol 1 & Vol 2)

The PRESIDENT (09:31): I have received, through the Governor-General, from the Governor of South Australia a copy of the certificate of the choice by the houses of parliament of South Australia of Rex Patrick to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Xenophon. I table the document.

Senators Sworn

Senator Rex Patrick made and subscribed the oath of allegiance.

Not wanting moss to grow under his feet I note that Senator Patrick wasted no time getting signed up to the RRAT committee as a 'Participating Member':

Quote:COMMITTEES

MembershipThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Ketter ) (17:57): The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees. Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (17:57): by leave—I move:

That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:...

...Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and References Committees—

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Patrick

& the next day...

Quote:Senator Patrick to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Senate—notes that:

the Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010(AIC Act) establishes three independent statutory office holders:the Information Commissioner,the Freedom of Information (FOI) Commissioner, andthe Privacy Commissioner,subsections 11(5)(a) and (b) and subsections 12(5)(a) and (b) of the AIC Act describe the independence of each Commissioner,in the six months following the Royal Assent to the AIC Act, three commissioners were appointed to the three office holder’s positions,since the unsuccessful attempt by the Abbott Government to abolish the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, two commissioners have left office and have not been replaced,currently Mr Timothy Pilgrim fills the statutory position of the Information Commissioner and Privacy Commissioner, and the position of FOI Commissioner is vacant on account of Mr Pilgrim not holding the legal qualifications required in section 14 of the AIC Act, andthe AIC Act requires the appointment of three independent statutory office holders, and the Government is constitutionally bound to maintain and execute the laws of the land and uphold the will of the Parliament; andcalls on the Government to immediately commence the process of appointing an independent Privacy Commissioner and an independent FOI Commissioner, in accordance with the AIC Act. (general business notice of motion no. 590)

It will be interesting to see if Senator Patrick carries the same passionate concern as Nx on matters of aviation safety by continuing the probing scrutiny of the governments aviation safety 3 stooges...
While on the RRAT I note that it is going to be a busy 4 months for both the Senate Standing Legislative and Reference's committees, especially in the month of March 2018 :

Quote:Airports Amendment Bill 2016 [Provisions]
On 9 February 2017, the Senate moved that the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 March 2017. On 28 March 2017, the Senate granted an extension of time for reporting to 19 March 2018.

On 13 October 2016, the Senate moved that the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 27 April 2017.On 16 February 2017, the Senate granted an extension of time for reporting until 6 December 2017. On 16 November 2017, the Senate granted an extension of time for reporting until 28 March 2017.The operation, regulation and funding of air route service delivery to rural, regional and remote communities

On 16 November 2017, the Senate moved that the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 March 2018.

In NXT Senator Patrick's first speech yesterday, I was encouraged to see that Senator Rex has picked up the Xenophon mantle on transparency and accountability of the Government and it's agencies:

Quote:..I think legislating is something the Senate does quite well. However, there is another constitutional function that the Senate is not fulfilling, in my view, as well as it does in legislating. In this I refer to the Senate's role of probing and checking the administration of laws, of keeping itself and the public informed and of its requirement to insist on ministerial accountability for the government's administration. With words so relevant to us that it is quoted in Odgers, US President Woodrow Wilson described the informing role of the congress, stating:

It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served …

The philosopher John Stewart Mill, quoted with approval in the High Court case of Egan and Willis, summarised the task as:

… to watch and control the government: to throw the light of publicity on its acts …

Applied to the Senate, these principles make it clear that our role is not just to review and pass legislation. Indeed, as President Wilson stated, 'The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function.' In the House of Representatives the government has the majority, usually, and so that function is not performed there. Governments can never be relied on to supervise and scrutinise themselves. The Senate must take this role most seriously. The Constitution, particularly section 49, grants the Senate power to carry out this informing function.

The Senate can conduct an inquiry of ministers through questioning and can compel the attendance of witnesses and the giving of evidence, and require the production of documents. Yet, despite having these powers, the Senate has often been reluctant to use them. It sometimes appears to be satisfied with explanations that are untimely and/or unsatisfactory. I provide you some examples.

Questions on notice tabled in this chamber are often not returned within the 30 days required by the standing orders. The same is true for estimates, where answers to questions are often returned to committees at the eleventh hour. This is disrespectful of the Senate, and more so of the citizens for whom the questions are asked, and should not be permitted if we are seen to be taking our job seriously.

All too often, orders for the production of documents have been met with contempt. An order for the production gets made. The government advances an argument for public interest immunity, however tenuous that argument might be. Invariably the Senate does not accept the public interest immunity claim and the government insists on its refusal to provide the document, and then the Senate does nothing except weaken itself. In those cases where the Senate arguments are strong for the documents to be produced, the Senate weakens itself by not using its powers to insist on production.

Also, the Senate has been shy about calling junior officials to estimates and to references committees. Fellow Senators, the devil is often in the detail, and senior officials, officers of summary knowledge, simply don't know the details. The Senate should not hesitate to call a witness of any rank or experience if that witness has the information the Senate deems necessary for informing itself. I've seen departments resist the calling of junior witnesses and, more recently, declining a request for senior officials on a naval shipbuilding advisory board to appear before a committee. This is from Odgers:

In practice, it is rare for a committee to order the attendance of a witness because it is rare for anyone to refuse a committee’s invitation to give evidence.

Colleagues, of course we should not exercise power irresponsibly, but by the same token we must also recognise that there are circumstances when it is also irresponsible not to exercise a power.

Finally, I've seen departments refuse to give evidence for shallow reasons. Last month, Defence refused to discuss whether the use of Australian steel was a requirement in an armoured vehicle. Let us be clear: we don't have to accept denial, obfuscation or spin from executive government and its servants. To do so is copping out, selling out or wimping out of the oaths that we have taken. It's time we stood up for ourselves and used the numbers we normally use so effectively in enhancing legislation to enhance this critical oversight role.

In that vein, I wish to raise an important oversight deficiency of the federal parliament, that the federal parliament wants for fixing. Just over a year ago the Prime Minister announced an independent review of Australia's intelligence services. The review was released in June and included a number of recommendations that recognised—noting that 7,000 people and 10 agencies are involved, and more than $2 billion of taxpayers' money is being spent on intelligence—that more coordination was required in the intel domain. Whilst I strongly support our intelligence services, we must also recognise that the power that comes with such organisations must be appropriately balanced with enhanced accountability.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is currently constrained to oversight of administrative and financial matters. The parliament, in contrast to the principles of responsible government, has carved out operational matters from the purview of the committee, and that is neither wise nor acceptable. For the avoidance of doubt, the intelligence service does a lot of first-class work and critically important work. Parliamentary oversight does not constrain an agency operating lawfully; rather, it seeks to enhance an agency's operations.

This has long been recognised in the US, where committees such as the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence can delve deeply into agency operations. This is accepted by the US intelligence community as necessary and appropriate. It should be the same here, and I propose to introduce a private senator's bill to this effect.

Joseph Pulitzer once said:

There is not a crime, there is not a dodge, there is not a trick, there is not a swindle, there is not a vice which does not live by secrecy.

Open and transparent government is critical in a system of responsible government. However, the effective use of the Senate's informing and oversight powers must also be augmented by strong and effective laws that ensure the fullest degree of transparency and accountability of government. Freedom of information laws, strong whistleblower protections and enhancing the powers of ombudsmen and auditors-general will ensure more accountability. Why does this matter? If the Senate does its job to the fullest extent possible, if we have institutions to ensure transparency and accountability, the taxpayers' money will be spent more wisely and more effectively, which is clearly in the interest of all Australians...